[Pnakotus]

The team has fixed a great many of Violitions mistakes in FS2.  One area neglected, however, is the UI.

As it stands the UI is clumsy, ineffiencent, isn't designed for the resolution we use, isn't designed for the 3d models we use instead of icons, and has huge swathes of dead space along with infomation and buttons crammed into corners.

Specifically talking about the 'ship select' screen, the 'ship data' element is far too large, and 30% empty.  The 'ship preview' window is far too large.  The 'ship inventory' section is too small, doesn't show enough different ships, and doesn't 'page' through availible ships.  It also doesn't have a scrollbar.  The 'wing' area is okay, but could be make larger and clearer by reducing the massive waste in the centre of the screen.

The 'loadout' screen isn't so bad, but still suffers form 'Violition clicky syndrome'.  Slightly narrowing the gun and missile images allows almost twice as many in the same area: reducing the deadspace in the middle could allow almost 3 times.

A good UI doesn't force you to click 'next ship' five times to find the one you want.  It doesn't have massive, almost empty windows - like the 'ship data' one - on the same screen as squashed working elements like the 'ship inventory'.  Looking at the ship select screen from a USER perspective, the text and model are simply fluff and almost irrelevant.  The fact that those two elements crush the USEFUL section, the ship inv/wing section, into the bottom third of the screen is terrible.  Simply removing the empty parts of the preview and ship data windows would allow far more ship selection data and functionality to be displayed - which is after all what the screen is for.  THis would have no negative effect on the 'eye candy' nature of the ship preview.

The loadout screen should, in my opinion, drop the 'class 1 - 8' rubbish and make a proper linear scale based on ACTUAL damages.  The current classes don't properly reflect the differences in damages vs shield, hull and sub.  Of course, they don't tell you damage vs sub at ALL.

Personally, I'd implement ship and weapon tooltips that give important stats (like speed, shield, armour etc or various damage stats) to streamline usage.  Its a copout design-wise to say 'but everyone already knows'.  Everyone has learnt to use this horrible UI, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.  Everyone liked the old Herc model too.

[FireCrack]

Double wide selection columns for all!!!

[StratComm]

I digress; the ship selection screen is the only time we really get to see our fighters up-close and personal.  I think it adds a lot of immersion to be able to see the ships the way we do, and we'd kill part of the storytelling aspect by removing them.  The tech descriptions and pseudo-stats have to be written well to be of any use, but they too add meaningful data to the conversation the first time through.  If I had to wait for a tooltip to pop up telling me the stats of weapons, I'd get a little annoyed.

I actually like the proportions, but am frankly annoyed at the amount of hastle it takes to actually use what is given to us.  What needs to be implimented is a copy loadout to wing function and icon, and the inability to fluidly click-and-drag on things right now is frustrating to say the least.  However, you should only rarely have more than 5 or 6 ship types to choose from, unless the mission designer was sloppy with making sure the player fills the role he's supposed to, so the lack of a bigger ship selection window shouldn't be a problem 95% of the time.

[Mongoose]

I agree with StratComm; fundamentally, the ship selection screen is pretty good, at least in my opinion.  True, dragging the ships/weapons is a bit cumbersome, but I'd rather have a huge view of the ship than a bunch of huge icons.

[StratComm]

Or even a bunch of tiny icons.  I could see doubling the length of the guns and missiles lists and putting them side-by-side, but that's about the only fundamental layout change I'd want to see.  It's there, it's not broke, and before anyone goes to fix it we really need to focus on more important things, like replacing interface art with freely-distributable material made by the community itself.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by StratComm
What needs to be implimented is a copy loadout to wing function and icon, and the inability to fluidly click-and-drag on things right now is frustrating to say the least.

I made all the interface art rewuired for this the first time it was brought up. Nobody ended up using it.

[Flaser]

Instead replacing the million unecessary image files a new 2D GUI should be made that can properly work with a lot less images - by applying effects to the images - and use a table for all the position data.

Moreover I have to agree Pnakotus.

The current UI wastes way too much space.
...and you're being paranoid Stratcomm.

Noone said the ship should be removed - in fact we should keep the ship hovering as an image, but instead having 2 separate windows practically showing the same there should be only one.

With the rendered models availible we should use them for both ship selection and loadout - a feature IMHO WMCoolmon superbly implemented.

Instead popupboxes - which we all seem to hate - we should have valid data avilible on weapons from the wepons table.

So use a single movable model to show loadout points, and keep the ship data hovering next to it.
These hoveing datalabels should be used for weapons too.

Anyway whatever is re/made should be already prepared for tertiary systems.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
I made all the interface art rewuired for this the first time it was brought up. Nobody ended up using it.

It's on the to-do list.  Though I haven't been able to find it on my computer... could you post it again?

As for the non-fluid mouse movement, WMC figured out what was causing it.  Hopefully a fix will be in the next official release.

[Nuke]

i geuss its the interface thats been holding up tha ability for the player to use the 3rd primary and 4th secondary banks? any chane this could be worked on?

[Pnakotus]

Stratcomm, I SPECIFICALLY pointed out reducing the deadspace in the preview window DIDN'T mean reducing the eye candy.  I'm sure you can imagine how annoying it is when someone raises a point addressed in the OT.  Where'd I suggest getting rid of it?  I mean, for ****.

Double-columning the existing layout is okay, but I think it'd look 'neater' if the deadspace under the data window (the part thats ALWAYS ****ING EMPTY, and only drawn because of the 640x480 - 1024x768 thing) and put two ROWS of ships in. I've cut n pasted, and you can fix 5-6 of the present 'small 3d' icons we use along there.  Two rows don't even use up all the deadspace.

This allows 1) the preview window to be unaffected (although the model doesn't need all that EMPTY SPACE around it) 2) the wing layout to be expanded or enlarged and 3) 10-12 different fighters to be presented all the time.

The wing layout section needs a 'drop point' that changes the entire wing to the type dropped on it.  The wing title perhaps?  Changing entire assault plans is fiddly with the present system.

I don't think ANY 2d images need be used.  Use 3d for everything.  Makes it simpler in the long run.  Rendered guns would be sweet.

[StratComm]

I was a little vague; I understand that you don't want to eliminate it.  That's not my point though; I see inherent problems with moving any of it around a whole lot.  My suggestion on the guns and weapons could be extended to ships as well (make it twice as long) without consequences.  But anything more will be cutting in to the preview window in some form or fashion, especially at lower res.  As for that empty space, well, it would dissapear in the off chance that someone runs the game in low-res mode and so would anything you put there.  That's what's holding the system back; if we pushed up the minimum resolution to 1024x768 then we could start thinking about eating up the space on the loadout screen.  Until then, though, the point is somewhat moot.

For the record, some 2d is always going to be needed.  Guns and missiles don't get enough polys associated with them to look good under scrutiny, and there's always a need for the actual graphics of the panels.  The elimination of the need tor selection and loadout .ani's for ships is significant, but I don't really see how we could get much beyond that without a ton of work on the back end (redoing models, etc).  And I've already brought up (again) and gotten confirmation that the coders intend to try a ship-to-wing copy function

[Pnakotus]

You're right, SOME 2d will be needed; but they can be applied as textures.  Replacing as much of the UI with new code/images as possible serves many purposes, not least of which is moving away from the V originals.

About lower res - who cares.  Its the 21st century.  Basing the UI on 640 is WHY its broken: thats why you've got a little ship rotating in a window thats 60% of the screen.  Just trim it down: again I point out that if the UI was rendered using 3d all these elements could be resized to fit the resolution automatically, removing the problem entirely.  Indeed, the most common suggestions (widening the ship sel column SLIGHTLY (about 12 pixels) or moving it to the EMPTY part of the 'Useless Ship Data/Fluff' window both have absolutely no effect on the preview AT ALL.  I'd really like to see the preview fill the whole window, though.  Any idea why it doesn't?

On the weapon 'stats' - they AREN'T meaningful.  V admits they have basically nothing to do with game stats.  So rework them so they linearly relate to damage, and put bars on the gun image or something.  Its bad UI to have to click on EACH OPTION to find out which one to use: that infomation should be visible at a glance.  Same with missiles.  And hey - don't use ingame models!  Make UI specific ones!  How hard was that.

[StratComm]

I still use 640x480 for certain things.  It's premature to abandon the lower-resolutions simply because they are still useful and meaningful to people with slower cards.  (I use it for debug purposes, so I can see the full window and the debug spew at the same time, but the point still stands).  The interface should be scaling, but it needs to be laid out for the minimum resolution that can be used.

[WMCoolmon]

1) If you want 'meaningful' weapon stats, use ship_choice_3d and remove the tech text in the ships.tbl (besides the description and manufacturer). FS2 will autofill the spots with consistent information. I don't like the idea of adding in exact stats for fighters because that seems like it'd break immersion and go against the general feel of the game. The weapons loadout screen is pretty casual, heck, the whole ship selection process is. Plus, the units could be practically anything. If modmakers want exact stats, they can always add them in the TBL files.

2) 3D interface art is an interesting idea (I suggested it for Ferrium) but I'm not sure if it could be done; it'd require rendering a lot of models onscreen at the same time. For guns and missiles and such you could always create a techroom model for 'em, higher poly than the ingame one. You couldn't eliminate 2D entirely though (and there are uses for it, since it cuts down on resource usage).

3) Support for 640x480 will be kept, as will the original interface, for backwards compatibility. If we do a redesign of the interface, it should be able to fit in 640x480 or there's simply too much on the screen at one time.

[Pnakotus]

-SIGH-

Its like I'm talking to a wall.

I have never suggested 1) removing or reducing the preview size 2) removing support for 640 or 3) using table stats in the UI.

I HAVE suggested

1) removing the EMPTY SPACE in the preview, since the preview model is TOO SMALL at 1024*768.  Making the model larger is fine: empty space isn't.

2) designing the interface for 1024*768, since designing it for 640*480 is WHY its broken in the first place.  The windows are the same screen size, even though that space isn't needed at higher res.

3) recalibrating the 'class' scale to be linearly based on the table stats.  This is NOT simply using the table stats, its merely removing the handwaving from the present system.

Furthermore, moving things around on ship sel costs nothing display wise and gives more options, making the screen easier to use.  Noone has presented any reasons to not implement changes, except 'I didn't bother reading your post, but we shouldn't do something you didn't say we should.'

If 3d interface isn't possible in FSO, that doesn't really surprise me.  Its definately something to consider for any future projects, however: I'm an OS:X convert.

But I give up.  Have your broken UI: force everyone to click as much as possible.  Don't implement 'entire wing' drop points.  Don't make more ships availible.  Don't enlarge the wing area to show more information.  Why would you?  It's only IMPROVING THE GAME

[WMCoolmon]

1) removing the EMPTY SPACE in the preview, since the preview model is TOO SMALL at 1024*768. Making the model larger is fine: empty space isn't.

2) designing the interface for 1024*768, since designing it for 640*480 is WHY its broken in the first place. The windows are the same screen size, even though that space isn't needed at higher res.

3) recalibrating the 'class' scale to be linearly based on the table stats. This is NOT simply using the table stats, its merely removing the handwaving from the present system.

3) Already done, although it isn't exactly linear. If no tech text is present, FS2 will (with recent builds) automatically fill in the fields with consistent information - unlike the tables, where a ship with 'Heavy' armor may actually have less armor than a ship with 'medium' armor. It'll also do this for turrets and capships as well; the catch is that the model must have been loaded already, or else the fields will remain blank.

1/2) It's designed for 640x480 because it's the lowest common denominator. Adding more stuff to each screen isn't necessary; resizing models can be done, though that could cut off parts of some models. Changes in the closeup position/zoom for ships are, I believe, more sensitive at higher resolutions. Command briefings aren't resized because, arguably, that would make them look blocky and therefore worse.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Pnakotus
1) removing the EMPTY SPACE in the preview, since the preview model is TOO SMALL at 1024*768.  Making the model larger is fine: empty space isn't.

You can do this in the table files. Just make the eyepoint closer to the craft.

3) recalibrating the 'class' scale to be linearly based on the table stats.  This is NOT simply using the table stats, its merely removing the handwaving from the present system.

Ok...I do agree with that.

If 3d interface isn't possible in FSO, that doesn't really surprise me.  Its definately something to consider for any future projects, however: I'm an OS:X convert.

Future projects? Aside from Ferrium, this is the project.
And plus, I never liked all the fancy crap that OS X has. It just hogs system resources for no good reason,  rather than just using plane old animated 2D images.

But I give up.  Have your broken UI: force everyone to click as much as possible.  Don't implement 'entire wing' drop points.  Don't make more ships availible.  Don't enlarge the wing area to show more information.  Why would you?  It's only IMPROVING THE GAME [/B]

Oh, you're so much more righteous and so much more knowledgable than the rest of us who have been laboring with this game for over six years now.

[StratComm]

I'd like to point out a couple of things before this gets closed/falls off the radar: "wing drop points" would be hard, because each bank of weapons represents a unique entity and one that actually matters; in the Myrmidon, if you want to mount two weapon types, you usually want to chose which gun goes into the slot with 4 firepoints.  And if you start adding a million bank-specific drop points then things get even more cluttered and useless.  What has been suggested, reiterated, and supported by the SCP staff is a "copy to wing" type button, so you could customize one ship like you want it and apply that configuration to the entire wing.  It just has to be implimented.

And by wanting the interface designed around 1024x768, you inherently break lower resolutions as there's no room to scale anything down.  640x480 stays, for reasons already stated.  Therefore the interface screen must be functional at 640x480, period.  You can't design it for any higher resolution.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Nuke
i geuss its the interface thats been holding up tha ability for the player to use the 3rd primary and 4th secondary banks? any chane this could be worked on?

No... actually, Shadow made some of it, the rest can use default FS maps.

[WMCoolmon]

The HUD display is really what's holding it up. Let's see if I can find an appropriate quote...

Apparently not.  Simply put, all the locations are statically defined in the code. Draw image "xxx" at coordinates "xxx"...and then a whole bunch of copy-pasted code to handle two. It would've been faster and more modular to add the y values of the images together, and would've killed the problem entirely, unless you had 10 weapon banks total, but apparently that didn't happen.

I might make another try at it tonight between commercials for Sci-fi-Friday, since so many people want it.